Thankfully it wasn’t a ‘down’ train, meaning it had to stop anyway at the station just to the right of the barrier. Had this been a down train it would have caused an alarm and caused the train to stop.

This implies a FLB crossing without a protecting signal - is that true?

I don't know what the law says about parking so as to obstruct the railway, but the yellow box used on some types of crossing should help both in discouraging parking and prosecuting offenders. Here there is no box but parking where there is a double white line is also an offence. Endangering the safety of the railway is an offence they could justifiably use on an automatic crossing, but at a signal-protected crossing is it true to say that it endangers safety - rather than causing delay?

In any case penalties do tend to be higher when the authorities are dealing with a moving traffic offence than what tends to be seen as a parking violation.

Thankfully it wasn’t a ‘down’ train, meaning it had to stop anyway at the station just to the right of the barrier. Had this been a down train it would have caused an alarm and caused the train to stop.

This implies a FLB crossing without a protecting signal - is that true?

John

Local to me, and I think I know who the driver was!

Up or down train it wouldn't matter as they ALL stop at Caersws. And John, I would have thought you knew, that there are no signals as this is ERTMSland. As the barriers couldn't be lowered all trains would not have got a Movement order at the last block marker. On the UP the train probably would have been brought into the platform, and on the DOWN probably stopped before Llani Rd LX

The crossing is a CCTV LX controlled from Machynlleth.

Poor parking is endemic at Caersws Station. The car park is normally full by 0830 and people regularly park along the road where there are double white lines. I suspect and hope that the Police will now be more active in future.

LlaniGraham wrote:And John, I would have thought you knew, that there are no signals as this is ERTMSland. As the barriers couldn't be lowered all trains would not have got a Movement order at the last block marker. On the UP the train probably would have been brought into the platform, and on the DOWN probably stopped before Llani Rd LX

Thanks. I know nothing about ERTMS, it is like a foreign language to me. I will assume that "movement orders" and "block markers" are the equivalent of signals then. I would be very surprised if any form of signalling did not have a fail-safe arrangement which would stop a train until a FLB crossing is confirmed clear but the desciption in that article implies that the train would only be stopped by some sort of alarm being given which would cause the train to stop.

“The signaller could not give the train the green light to proceed over the crossing" is no doubt merely a journalistic way of saying he had to hold the train, rather than a literal reference to colour light aspects. Pretty much what one expects from the papers but in this case only slightly misleading. It is perhaps less misleading than the Network Rail comment to the effect that misusing crossings not only causes delay but puts lives in danger, since that observation although true in some situations does not seem to have applied here.

John Hinson wrote:Thanks. I know nothing about ERTMS, it is like a foreign language to me. I will assume that "movement orders" and "block markers" are the equivalent of signals then. I would be very surprised if any form of signalling did not have a fail-safe arrangement which would stop a train until a FLB crossing is confirmed clear but the desciption in that article implies that the train would only be stopped by some sort of alarm being given which would cause the train to stop.

John

No problem John.

There are no physical signals on this line; all train control is done via the drivers display. Basically, a "Movement Order (MO)" is transmitted to the train display that allows the train to pass a Block Marker (BM). A route can be set so that a train will automatically get an MO prior to each BM. At Caersws the MO can't be issued until the level crossing is "proved clear". As the driver would not have been given a MO because the barrier wasn't down he would have got a warning on his display that he was being brought to a stop, presumably at the Station on the UP. He may also have got a message from Machynlleth SCC stating the "problem" there.

The Shropshire Star aren't known for their accuracy about anything to do with the railway!

Last edited by LlaniGraham on Sat Feb 13, 2016 11:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Mike Hodgson wrote:“The signaller could not give the train the green light to proceed over the crossing" is no doubt merely a journalistic way of saying he had to hold the train, rather than a literal reference to colour light aspects. Pretty much what one expects from the papers but in this case only slightly misleading. It is perhaps less misleading than the Network Rail comment to the effect that misusing crossings not only causes delay but puts lives in danger, since that observation although true in some situations does not seem to have applied here.

See above.The comment about misuse of crossings putting lives at danger seems to be a standard comment from NR and is correct.This crossing does have some history of misuse especially since it was automated and the Box closed. People regularly ignore the red lights and some have been seen jumping the barriers when there is a train in the station that they want to catch.

There are no physical signals on this line; all train control is done via the drivers display. Basically, a "Movement Order (MO)" is transmitted to the train display that allows the train to pass a Block Marker (BM). A route can be set so that a train will automatically get an MO prior to each BM. At Caersws the MO can't be issued until the level crossing is "proved clear". As the driver would not have been given a MO because the barrier wasn't down he would have got a warning on his display that he was being brought to a stop, presumably at the Station on the UP. He may also have got a message from Machynlleth SCC stating the "problem" there.

Thanks for that. That's what I was wanting to know - ERTMS is similar to conventional signalling in terms of protection and the driver would not assume right of way (hopefully) until he receives an MO.

Apologies for my "iggerence", as many know I have quite enough to fill my head with historical matters . . .

There are no physical signals on this line; all train control is done via the drivers display. Basically, a "Movement Order (MO)" is transmitted to the train display that allows the train to pass a Block Marker (BM). A route can be set so that a train will automatically get an MO prior to each BM. At Caersws the MO can't be issued until the level crossing is "proved clear". As the driver would not have been given a MO because the barrier wasn't down he would have got a warning on his display that he was being brought to a stop, presumably at the Station on the UP. He may also have got a message from Machynlleth SCC stating the "problem" there.

Thanks for that. That's what I was wanting to know - ERTMS is similar to conventional signalling in terms of protection and the driver would not assume right of way (hopefully) until he receives an MO.

Apologies for my "iggerence", as many know I have quite enough to fill my head with historical matters . . .

Best regards,

John

As a minor point of correction (before it becomes more common that the correct term) the movement order is actually a Movement Authority (MA)